Tracking the timecourse of social perception: the effects of racial cues on event-related brain potentials

Event-related potentials were used to track social perception processes associated with viewing faces of racial ingroup and outgroup members. Activity associated with three distinct processes was detected. First, peaking at approximately 170 ms, faces were distinguished from nonface stimuli. Second, peaking at approximately 250 ms, ingroup members were differentiated from outgroup members, with a larger component suggesting greater attention to ingroup members. This effect may reflect the spontaneous application of a deeper level of processing to ingroup members. Third, peaking at approximately 520 ms, evaluative differentiation of ingroup and outgroup members occurred, with greater ingroup bias displayed by those with higher levels of prejudice on an explicit measure. Together, the results demonstrate the promise of using neural processes to track the presence, timing, and degree of activation of components relevant to social perception, prejudice, and stereotyping.     

Right‐wing authoritarianism,social dominance orientation and prejudice against threatening and competitive ethnic groups

This research rests on the assumption that individual differences approaches to prejudice benefit from an integration of intergroup factors. Following Duckitt (2001), we assumed that two prominent individual differences variables, right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), would differentially predict majority members' levels of ethnic prejudice depending on specific factors of the intergroup context: RWA as an index of motivational concerns about social cohesion, stability and security should drive prejudice against outgroups perceived as socially threatening, and SDO as an index of concerns about ingroup superiority and dominance should predict prejudice against outgroups perceived as potential competitors for power‐status. Across two studies (Ns = 82, 176), using between‐participants and within‐participants experimental designs, the effects of RWA on prejudice were particularly powerful when the outgroup was manipulated to be socially threatening, but the effects of SDO on prejudice appeared not to increase when the outgroup was manipulated to be competitive. In Study 2, presenting the outgroup as having low status also increased the effect of RWA, but not the effect of SDO. These results support the differential prediction assumption for RWA, but not for SDO. Implications for the conceptualisation of RWA and SDO are discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Don't ignore the other half: the impact of ingroup identification on implicit measures of prejudice

Recently several implicit measures of prejudice have been developed. Prejudice indices based on these measures are computed from response differences to positive and negative targets resulting from outgroup compared to ingroup stimuli. Up to now the focus of research involving these measures has mainly been on attitudes and relations to outgroups (i.e. negative attitudes towards the outgroup). It is suggested here that implicit measures of prejudice are also influenced by one's relation towards the ingroup (i.e. ingroup identification), because they involve ingroup as well as outgroup stimuli. A correlational study and an experiment were conducted that supported this prediction. Implications for the application of implicit measures are discussed. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Cultural pluralism and prejudice reduction

Predictions derived from models of cultural pluralism and cultural assimilation were tested. Previous research has shown that highlighting differences between ethnic groups, in conjunction with self-focus, can reduce prejudice. The presented research tested the following questions: (a) does highlighting differences function to reduce prejudice between groups that are dissimilar to each other as well as between those that are highly similar, (b) is prejudice reduction due to distinctiveness a function of the lessened ingroup positivity or lessened outgroup negativity, (c) does making distinctiveness salient reduce prejudice toward only the distinctive outgroups or to outgroups more generically, and (d) does the manipulation equally impact African American, Mexican American, Mexican National, and White American participants? Results demonstrated that highlighting differences while simultaneously focusing on the self reduces prejudice, although similarity mediates the relationship with those who are perceived as more different. Distinctiveness also reduced outgroup negativity and generalized to other outgroups. Finally, the manipulation reduced prejudice only for White Americans, Mexican Americans, and Mexican Nationals.     

Social dominance orientation: Cause or ‘mere effect’?: Evidence for SDO as a causal predictor of prejudice and discrimination against ethnic and racial outgroups

The question of whether SDO is a cause or mere effect of intergroup attitudes and behaviors has been the subject of heated debate. Much of the research brought to bear on the question, however, has used cross-sectional data that is not best-suited for making causal inferences. Using data from a panel study that tracked UCLA undergraduates over several years, we find support for the notion that SDO is a cause, rather than ‘mere reflection’ of prejudice and discrimination against outgroups. Specifically, using cross-lagged analyses among White students, we show that SDO measured in 1996 has significant marginal utility for predicting prejudice against a series of ethnic outgroups, as well as self-reported ingroup friendship preference, four years later, controlling for their 1996 levels. Conversely, outgroup affect and ingroup friendship preference measured in 1996 fail to predict SDO levels in 2000 once 1996 SDO levels are taken into account. Implications of these analyses for the debate on the interpretation of SDO as a relatively stable orientation towards group-based hierarchy in society are discussed.     

Categorization and communication in the face of prejudice: when describing perceptions changes what is perceived

In the face of prejudice against an ingroup, common ground for communication exists when people use similar social categories to understand the situation. Three studies tested the hypothesis that describing perceptions of prejudice can fundamentally change those perceptions because communicators account for the common ground in line with conversational norms. When women (Study 1), African Americans (Study 2), and Americans (Study 3) simply thought about suspected prejudice against their ingroup, categorization guided their perceptions: Participants assimilated their views of the prejudiced event toward the perceptions of ingroup members but contrasted away from the perceptions of outgroup members. Conversely, when participants described their perceptions, they contrasted away from the given category information and actually arrived at the opposite perceptions as those who merely thought about the prejudiced event. Study 3 identified an important qualification of these effects by showing that they were obtained only when participants could assume their audience was familiar with the common ground. Implications are discussed for understanding the role of communication in facilitating and inhibiting collective action about prejudice.     

Social perception as induction and inference: an integrative model of intergroup differentiation, ingroup favoritism, and differential accuracy

Three general properties of social stereotypes are the perception of differences between ingroups and outgroups (intergroup differentiation), the perception of ingroups as having more desirable attributes than outgroups (ingroup favoritism), and the greater accuracy of ingroup perceptions (differential accuracy). We present and test an inductive-reasoning model that accounts for all 3 phenomena, and we explicate the relations among them. Based on empirical evidence, the model assumes that most people have a positive self-image, that they project these self-images more strongly to ingroups than to outgroups, and that their self-images are valid cues for judgments about social groups. Two minimal-group experiments using a crossed-categorization paradigm support the model and provide new evidence for underlying psychological processes.     

Perceiving ingroup members who use stereotypes: implicit conformity and similarity

Previous studies have shown that people subtly conform more to ingroup members who use stereotype‐consistent rather than stereotype‐inconsistent information when describing an outgroup member (Castelli, Vanzetto, Sherman, & Arcuri, 2001 ). In the present article, we will address two important issues. First, we will examine whether this subtle conformity toward stereotypers is related to individuals' prejudice level (Study 1). Second, we will examine one of the processes that underlie the perception of ingroup members who use stereotype‐consistent information, hypothesizing that individuals implicitly feel more similar to such sources than to ingroup members who use stereotype‐inconsistent information (Study 2). Both hypotheses were confirmed and results are discussed in terms of the distinction between implicit and explicit attitudes and their implications in the maintenance of social stereotypes. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Ingroup and outgroup inferences: when ingroup bias overwhelms outcome bias

Two experiments investigated conditions under which participants drew outcome-biased inferences about ingroups and outgroups. Participants read about ingroup and outgroup targets whose success or failure was influenced by an arbitrary decision rule. In Experiment 1, ingroup and outgroup members experienced two inconsistent outcomes (first success and then failure, or vice versa) despite almost identical performances. After reading about the first performance participants made outcome-biased inferences, but when the role of the decision rule became obvious inferences became group-serving. That is, outcomes continued to influence inferences when they cast the ingroup in a positive light (as when initial failure was followed by success) but failed to affect inferences when they were detrimental to the ingroup (as when initial success was qualified by later failure). In contrast, inferences about outgroups were outcome-biased when failure followed success, but not when success followed failure. The results of Experiment 2 showed that outcome biases influenced inferences when decision rules produced outcomes that promoted the ingroup but not when they produced outcomes that hurt the ingroup. No such benefit occurred for outgroups. The results confirm the impact of motivational concerns such as ingroup bias on the occurrence of outcome biases in inferences. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

“Patriotism à la Carte”: Perceived Legitimacy of Collective Guilt and Collective Pride as Motivators for Political Behavior

Intergroup emotions motivate behavior, yet little is known about how people perceive these emotional experiences in others. In three experiments (Ns = 109, 179, 246), we show that U.S. citizens believe collective guilt is an illegitimate emotional motivator for ingroup political behavior, while collective pride is legitimate. This differential legitimacy is due to the perception that collective guilt violates the norm of group interest, while collective pride adheres to it; those who believe ingroup interests are more important than outgroups’ exhibited this illegitimacy gap. The perception that the intergroup emotion promoted ingroup entitativity mediated the relationship between emotion (pride vs. guilt) and legitimacy; this relationship was especially strong for those high in the belief in the norm of group interest. Collective guilt can have prosocial consequences, yet the perception that it is illegitimate may hinder such consequences from being realized.     

Emotional prejudice,essentialism, and nationalism The 2002 Tajfel lecture

In explaining differences between groups, people ascribe the human essence to their ingroup and consider outgroups as less human. This phenomenon, called infra‐humanization, occurs outside people's awareness. Because secondary emotions (e.g. love, hope, contempt, resentment) are considered uniquely human emotions, people not only attribute more secondary emotions to their ingroup than to outgroups, but are reluctant to associate these emotions with outgroups. Moreover, people behave less cooperatively (in terms of altruism, imitation, and approach) with an outgroup member who expresses himself through secondary emotions. Infra‐humanization occurs for high and low status groups, even in the absence of conflict between groups. It does not occur when the outgroup target is adequately individualized, by a complete name or through perspective taking, for instance. The differential familiarity with the ingroup and the outgroup cannot explain infra‐humanization. Yet, preliminary results show that subjective essentialism and ingroup identification may mediate the effects of infra‐humanization. A connection is made between nationalism and infra‐humanization. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Age differences in neural activity related to mentalizing during person perception

ABSTRACT

Mentalizing, or thinking about others’ mental states, shapes social interactions. Older adults (OA) have reduced mentalizing capacities reflected by lower medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) activation. The current study assessed if OA’ lower mPFC activation reflects less spontaneous mentalizing during person perception. Younger adults (YA) and OA viewed ingroup White and outgroup Black and Asian faces and completed a mentalizing task during fMRI. Afterward, they completed a task in which they inferred mental states from faces. Using an mPFC region defined by the mentalizing task, OA had lower activity than YA during person perception. OA’ mPFC activity toward faces positively related to their mentalizing outside the scanner. The extent of OA’ lower mPFC activation during person perception may depend on their actual detection of mental states in faces. Further, YA’, but not OA’, mPFC activity distinguished between outgroups. OA’ lower mentalizing-related mPFC activity may reduce their ability to individuate outgroup members.     

镜像神经元的意义

镜像神经元是一种感觉–运动神经元。它的典型特征是在动作观察和动作执行两个阶段皆被激活。多年来, 由于研究伦理的限制, 研究恒河猴时使用的单细胞电极植入方式无法应用于人类, 因而不能确定人类大脑皮层是否也存在着具有同样功能的神经细胞。但是通过脑成像技术, 神经科学家确定人类大脑皮层存在着具有相同或类似功能的脑区, 称为“镜像神经系统”。文章对镜像神经元及其人类镜像神经系统的意义进行了深入分析, 指出：(1)由于镜像机制把动作知觉和动作执行进行匹配, 观察者仅仅通过他人行为的知觉, 就激活了执行这一动作的神经环路, 产生了一种他人动作的具身模拟, 因而可以直接把握他人的行为意图; (2)镜像神经元所表现出来的那种动作知觉与动作执行的双重激活功能支持了身心一体说, 从方法论上证明了身心二元论的缺陷, 为身心的整体观提供了神经生物学的证据; (3)镜像神经机制把他人的动作与自己的运动系统相匹配, 以自身动作的神经环路对他人的动作做出回应, 促进了人际理解和沟通, 成为社会沟通的“神经桥梁”。     

Mimicry reduces racial prejudice

Humans are empathic animals. We automatically match other people's motor responses, allowing us to get “under the skin” of other people. Although this perception–action-coupling—a form of motor resonance—occurs spontaneously, this happens less readily with the outgroup (vs. the ingroup) and for those high (vs. low) in prejudice. Thus, prejudice diminishes our tendency to resonate with the outgroup. Here we suggest that the reverse is also possible—that resonating with the actions of an outgroup member can reduce prejudice. We predict, in other words, that explicitly mimicking the outgroup can reduce prejudice. Participants watched a 140-second video depicting actors repeatedly reaching for and drinking from a glass of water. They passively watched a video with Black actors; watched the video and mimicked the Black actors; or watched and mimicked a video with actors from their ingroup. Participants then completed the Affect Misattribution Procedure (Payne, Cheng, Govorun, & Stewart, 2005), a measure of implicit anti-Black prejudice, and an explicit symbolic racism measure. Results indicate that the outgroup-mimicry group had similar implicit preference for Blacks and Whites, unlike the other two groups, which preferred Whites over Blacks. The outgroup-mimicry group also reported less explicit racism towards Blacks than the ingroup-mimicry group, but no less than the ingroup-observation group. Mimicking specific outgroup members, therefore, reduces implicit, and possibly explicit, bias against the outgroup more generally.     

Terror Management Theory: Implications for Understanding Prejudice,Stereotyping, Intergroup Conflict,and Political Attitudes

Terror management theory posits that to maintain psychological security despite the awareness of personal mortality, humans must maintain faith in cultural worldviews. These worldviews provide ways for humans to believe they are significant enduring beings in a world of meaning rather than mere animals fated only to obliteration upon death. We review basic support for terror management theory and research exploring the implications of terror management theory for understanding prejudice, stereotyping, intergroup conflict, and political attitudes. This research shows that when the psychological need to defend these worldviews is heightened by reminders of death (mortality salience), prejudice, stereotyping, and support for charismatic leaders and aggression against outgroups is increased. Terror management concerns also lead targets of prejudice to disidentify with their ingroup and confirm negative stereotypes of their group. We conclude by considering the implications of terror management theory and research for the alleviation of prejudice and intergroup conflict.     

Predicting support for racial transformation policies: Intergroup threat,racial prejudice,sense of group entitlement and strength of identification

Policies and programs designed to challenge the effects of racial discrimination (such as affirmative action) are hotly contested. Factors which have been proposed to explain opposition to these policies include racial prejudice, group threat and self‐interest, and perceptions of intergroup justice. We report the results of two random national telephone surveys which tested a theoretically based model of the predictors of policy support in post‐apartheid South Africa. The results provided limited support for Blumer's group position model. Compensatory and preferential treatment policies had different underlying predictors: Violated entitlement featured in the models of compensatory policy attitudes, but not preferential treatment policy attitudes, where threat was the strongest predictor. In addition to threat and violated entitlement, policy attitudes among the black sample were related to ingroup identification but those of the white sample were related to prejudice. The effects of these variables were in the opposite directions for the two samples: Policy support was associated with strong ingroup identification and high levels of threat among the black sample (i.e. prospective beneficiaries of the transformation policies), but with low levels of prejudice and threat among the white sample. We conclude by considering the implications that these findings have for social change programs. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Group identification moderates emotional responses to perceived prejudice

Two studies tested the prediction that group identification (importance of the group in the self-concept) moderates the impact of perceived discrimination on self-evaluative emotions (depression and self-esteem). In Study 1, women low in gender identification experienced less depressed emotion and higher self-esteem if a negative evaluation was due to sexism than when it was not. The self-evaluative emotions of women high in gender identification were not buffered by attributions to sexism. In Study 2, ethnic identification and depressed emotions were positively related when Latino-Americans read about pervasive prejudice against the ingroup but were negatively related when they read about prejudice against an outgroup. Both studies demonstrated that for highly group identified individuals, prejudice against the ingroup is a threat against the self. Thus, the self-protective strategy of attributing negative feedback to discrimination may be primarily effective for individuals who do not consider the group a central aspect of self.     

Relations between infants’ emerging reach‐grasp competence and event‐related desynchronization in EEG

Recent reports of similar patterns of brain electrical activity (electroencephalogram: EEG) during action execution and observation, recorded from scalp locations over motor‐related regions in infants and adults, have raised the possibility that two foundational abilities – controlling one's own intentional actions and perceiving others’ actions – may be integrally related during ontogeny. However, to our knowledge, there are no published reports of the relations between developments in motor skill (i.e. recording actual motor skill performance) and EEG during both action execution and action observation. In the present study we collected EEG from 21 9‐month‐olds who were given opportunities to reach for toys and who also observed an experimenter reach for toys. Event‐related desynchronization (ERD) was computed from the EEG during the reaching events. We assessed infants’ reaching‐grasping competence, including reach latency, errors, preshaping of the hand, and bimanual reaches, and found that desynchronization recorded in scalp electrodes over motor‐related regions during action observation was associated with action competence during execution. Infants who were more competent reachers, compared to less competent reachers, exhibited greater ERD while observing reaching‐grasping. These results provide initial evidence for an early emerging neural system integrating one's own actions with the perception of others’ actions.     

Perceptions of immigrants: modifying the attitudes of individuals higher in social dominance orientation

Previous research has demonstrated that directly challenging people's beliefs about immigrants may result in even stronger anti-immigration attitudes, especially among those higher in social dominance orientation (SDO). In addition, inducing the perception that immigrants are part of a larger ingroup does not modify immigration attitudes. In three studies, the article explores conditions that can reduce prejudice toward immigrants among those high in SDO. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that focusing attention on group identity maintains prejudice, whereas focusing attention on others reduces prejudice among those higher in SDO. Study 3 extends the findings of the first two studies by demonstrating that focusing attention on others in a way that induces perception of similarity with immigrants maintains negative attitudes toward immigrants, whereas focusing on individual values reduces prejudice among those higher in SDO. Implications for how prejudice could be reduced among those high in SDO through de-emphasis on group identity are discussed.     

Pathways to prejudice and outgroup hostility: Group alignment and intergroup conflict among football fans

How do different forms of group alignment influence our attitudes toward outgroups? To answer this, the current fieldwork study explored how identification and identity fusion differentially impact outgroup anxiety, prejudice, and hostility toward rival football fan supporter groups in Australia. The community participants (N = 100) were members of two active fan groups who had experienced a history of intergroup tensions. The findings from the full path model confirmed that the predictor group alignment variables of identification and fusion were correlated, and the two outcome variables of outgroup prejudice and hostility were correlated, as predicted. The findings also revealed that fusion with one's club predicted outgroup hostility, but not prejudice, whereas identification with one's club predicted outgroup prejudice, but not hostility. Additionally, outgroup anxiety was found to significantly mediate the relationship between ingroup identification and outgroup prejudice, whereas a similar relationship was not found for fusion. These findings highlight the differential impact of group alignment (i.e., identification and identity fusion) on social constructs of outgroup anxiety, prejudice, and hostility. Empirically, this is the first study to demonstrate the workings of these distinct group alignment pathways in an applied setting involving hard-core football fans. We discuss the broader implications of these findings for a fuller understanding of the drivers of intergroup tensions and conflict.